7 comments

I can see how you could construe it, but its only a proposal, not a plan. Therefore, if they have extra staff at the moment then they need to be removed over the said next couple of years...opposed to the proposals by 2030...which by network rail standards means next century!

It wasn't even a proposal - it was an report evaluating whether there was a business case for building such a line.
The second article is the result of the Office of Rail Regulation requiring them to reduce the costs of maintaining the existing network to match mainland Europe, chiefly by using less labour-intensive methods, which is why they won't need (and indeed, can't afford) to employ so many people in future.
So your headline comparison only works if you complete ignore the content of both stories.